Senior Moderator and Staff Trainer

It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many scriptural schollars and teachers - to not use the 'Living Bible' as a study bible. It has been shown to have countless manipulated changes to God's Word with wording that is not contained in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or 'street' Greek manuscripts. Any bible is better than no bible at all, but if you have any doubts about wording contained in some of the more modern bible versions, go back to the 1611 King James Version and a high quality pre-1991 Strong's Complete Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to see what the original wording really was. You might be surprised to see how some non-Christian publishers try to deceive.

Unregistered

Guest

I think sometimes we can get too hung up on one translation and myself I like to view different ones and see what each one says . To say that the person needs a new translation , maybe justified but the fact that the person is reading the Bible is more important .

Thinking " son of man ' and "son of dust' actually could be one in the same . Because we originally came from dust so why couldn't it be one and the same . / ?

Interesting that in the Bible Dictionary it says that the expression found in the OT is used as a self description of Jesus in the NT . In Hebrew " Son of Man " means an inidividual man , a man from genus man " Adam " Probably God wanted to emhasize to them that they were , after all , only men of the earth in spite of this priviledge of receiving the divine word .

Jesus was called " the son of man " which was taken from Daniel's prophecy.

The Holy Spirit reveals to each of us differently // John 14:26 ..... " The Holy Spirit , Whom the Father will send in my name , will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. "

It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many scriptural schollars and teachers - to not use the 'Living Bible' as a study bible. It has been shown to have countless manipulated changes to God's Word with wording that is not contained in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or 'street' Greek manuscripts. Any bible is better than no bible at all, but if you have any doubts about wording contained in some of the more modern bible versions, go back to the 1611 King James Version and a high quality pre-1991 Strong's Complete Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to see what the original wording really was. You might be surprised to see how some non-Christian publishers try to deceive.